Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Fri, 06 December 2019 22:24 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56676120120; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 14:24:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4gBA-xhW6xDh; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 14:24:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.247.10.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CE531208EB; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 14:24:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B4BC4B; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 23:24:43 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:in-reply-to:date:date:subject:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-type:message-id:from:from :received:received; s=mail; t=1575671081; bh=G0NDg5mAqPUFIdV207e G1jmargAK/WzzEBAMKMVXfjA=; b=FluPqdXybxicM3vfKcPfHKZre3LDiSYI4vr tIChAJ2jC603KODE3AHlHXPC7L091MOdIaMuXRdmiNT24U3l8oDzwN8RP9nsfGWp votZKSrBXZBvSRAKD9qu/Oan6z2G/vI6uk9CZhydNgFB7q2vZVn8WkSOvskNcDoz 6WRUEuvc=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 9nFySogz8Fxk; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 23:24:41 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:b0ab:deb0:9308:d2b2] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:b0ab:deb0:9308:d2b2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D62BE49; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 23:24:40 +0100 (CET)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Message-Id: <1DA43CC6-D6FF-4B4F-B7EF-8824FA069C31@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E990701C-7DD7-422F-BFCB-FA9EA5B94EB8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3594.4.19\))
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 23:24:39 +0100
In-Reply-To: <D666EA6E-E8E9-439A-9CDE-20857F03CB65@employees.org>
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, "int-ads@ietf.org" <int-ads@ietf.org>, rtg-ads <rtg-ads@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
References: <f2a0ad13-0eba-6f5a-1d3c-e45e2780f201@si6networks.com> <D666EA6E-E8E9-439A-9CDE-20857F03CB65@employees.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3594.4.19)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/bqCsUbeArdb4zNjfjnraNXrzaW4>
Subject: Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 22:24:49 -0000

Hi Ole,

>> I don't think there is much room for interpretation here, but anyway I
>> should ask: are you suggesting that I have attacked or been attacking
>> the process?
> 
> I would rather say taking advantage of the process.
> 
> By reiterating the same assertive arguments again and again you contribute to polarization. Your strategy for consensus building seems to be one of attrition.

I resent this statement. The process is designed to put the onus of justifying changes to the proposer. The fact that Fernando has to keep repeating his objections are the failure of the process and the chairs.

> If you want to help make the process work, I would encourage you to reconsider that approach.

No, the chairs need to change their approach so that objections to proposals are properly addressed (whether the chairs like the proposal or not. I have had to do that in my time as chair as well, and it's not easy but it's part of the job).

When an objection has been properly, explicitly and publicly addressed, THEN you can tell people to stop posting.
Sander